TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States Trust Company of New York v. Nathan

United States Trust Company of New York, as Trustee Under the Will of Benjamin Nathan, Deceased, Respondent, v. Harmon H. Nathan Et Al., Defendants, and Maud Nathan Et Al., as Executors of Frederick Nathan, Deceased, Et Al., Appellants

United States Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Nathan, 135 N.E. 894 (N.Y. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 28, 1922
Citations
135 N.E. 894233 N.Y. 5051922 N.Y. LEXIS 906
Headnotes
Will — construction — gift of remainder to descendants of testatoi-when determination as to who are descendants must he made as of date of death of cestui que trust.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supremo Court in the first judicial department, entered April 25, 1921, which affirmed a judgment entered upon a decision of the court at Special Term construing the will of Benjamin Nathan, deceased. Testator by his will established a trust fund for each of his daughters and provided that in case any should die leaving no issue the principal should be paid to his widow, but “ In case my wife shall not be then living, then, I give and bequeath the same to my descendants according to the law of the State of New York now in force regulating the distribution of personal property in case of intestacy.” The widow died inT879. A daughter died in 1883 without issue. A son died in January, 1918, leaving a wife but no issue, and another daughter died in August, 1918, leaving no issue. The share involved in the present action was the trust fund for the benefit of the last-.mentioned daughter. The question was as of what time are the descendants of the testator to be ascertained. The appellants contended that the descendants referred to by the testator were to be ascertained as of the date of the testator’s death. The respondents contended, and the court below held, that the descendants to whom distribution should be made are those answering that description at the date of the death of the said daughter.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Not sitting: Cardozo, J.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 11930: 11934: 21937: 11941: 11943: 11944: 11949: 119252026peak 1934 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Ackerman137 Misc. 910 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)
  2. In re the Estate of Milhau151 Misc. 283 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1934)
  3. In re the Estate of Watson164 Misc. 940 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1937)
  4. In re the Estate of Copp176 Misc. 777 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1941)
  5. In re the Estate of Wilson11 Misc. 2d 579 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1944)
  6. In re the Estate of White125 Misc. 348 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1925)

Most recent

  1. In re the Accounting of City Bank Farmers Trust Co.194 Misc. 972 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1949)
  2. In re the Estate of Wilson11 Misc. 2d 579 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1944)
  3. In re the Accounting of Hanchett182 Misc. 79 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1943)
  4. In re the Estate of Copp176 Misc. 777 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1941)
  5. In re the Estate of Watson164 Misc. 940 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1937)
  6. In re the Estate of Minturn152 Misc. 284 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1934)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list